2012 PLP 275 (PTD)

AZMATULLAH MALIK, J.

The instant reference was filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18-12-2008 passed by Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench whereby the appeal of petitioner was dismissed and the orders dated 26-3-2008 passed by Collector Customs (Appeals) Peshawar was upheld.

2. It is for the 3rd time that neither the learned counsel nor the petitioner is in attendance despite the service of notice. This is a reference of year 2010 therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to play hide and seek game with the Court hence, we are constrained to decide it on merits.

3. Along with the reference the application seeking condonation of delay was also filed.

4. We firstly would like to take the issue of limitation as the petitioner has submitted an application seeking condonation of delay and notice of this C.M. i.e. 1 of 2010 was issued to the respondents in this regard.

5. Admittedly the impugned order was passed on 18-12-2008 whereas the instant reference was filed on 17-10-2009, which is hopelessly time-barred. Although application for condonation was also filed with the reference yet no plausible explanation was offered for filling the reference beyond the prescribed period according to Limitation Act. On this score alone the reference in hand is not entertainable, however, in the interest of justice we would also like to decide the reference on merits.

6. Precise facts of the case are that on prior information Anti Smuggling Unit of Customs Department of D.I.Khan intercepted the mini Mazda with foreign origin cabin on the title cabinet frame when the same was proceeding from Zhob to Punjab via D.I.Khan. The driver/ occupant namely Fazal-ur-Rehman (petitioner) of the vehicle on demand of Customs Authorities, Anti Smuggling Unit failed to produce any legal document for possessing the vehicle in question. On physical examination of the chasses frame with the cabin it was observed by the Customs Authorities that the chasses # WEF4T-201926 was found stamped on the left side of the chasses frame whereas the chasses number engraved on such Mazda Trucks remained on right side. The 'vehicle i.e. Mazda Truck was referred to FSL Peshawar by the Customs Authorities for test and verification of the chasses plate. The repot of FSL received with the opinion: Nos. Before Chemical Treatment Nos. After Chemical Treatment Chassis No.WEF4T-201926 Chassis No.locally stamped and out of place. Opinion. Chemical examination of the chassis number of the vehicle in question reveled that the chassis number at its original site of chassis frame has been completely grinded and peeled off. The present,chassis number is out of place and re-stamped one.

7. Consequent upon the receipt of report of FSL the vehicle was seized under section 168(1) of Customs Act, 1969 being offence of smuggling under sections 2(s) and 16 punishable under the provision of sections 156(1)(8) and (89) of the Customs Act, 1969 r/w section 31 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. After the seizer on adjudication Assistant Collector Customs Division Kohat vide order dated 21-1-2008 out right confiscated the vehicle in term of section 156(1)(8) and (89) of the Customs Act, 1969 r/w (3) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950.

8. Dissatisfied from the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector Customs (Appeal), Peshawar who vide order dated 26-3-2008, while upholding the order of Assistant Collector Customs Division, Kohat dated 21-1-2008, dismissed the appeal.

9. We have perused the record of the case under reference.

10. The record would reveal that vehicle in question when seized was found with tempered chasses number, out of place and locally stamped. Record would also show that the petitioner failed to produce any valid document regarding import of the vehicle by him or by any other person. So much so, the manufacturing unit was approached by the respondent department to know the exact position regarding type of the vehicle as to when the same was manufactured and where. In response thereof the company responded with the report that vehicle has originally been manufactured on 16-7-1973 in Japan with the remarks that chasses number in such type of vehicle are located on right front frame behind the right front tyre. The petitioner failed to prove his ownership or import from Japan of the vehicle in question and after considering all the aspects the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed his appeal.

11. What has been discussed above we are of the considered view that no case for interference into the impugned order is made out hence this reference being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./376/P Reference dismisse